The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends

Abstract

The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends, by Harry W. Tajra. WUNT 2/67. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994. Pp. xii + 225. DM 98,00 (paper). The first three chapters of the book (pp. 1-117) are devoted to an absorbing account of Paul's trial and condemnation. The account opens with a reconstruction of the trial based on the available evidence amplified (necessarily so, given the exiguous amount of hard evidence) by legitimate speculation. The author postulates that on his arrival in Rome, in 60 CE, Paul spent two years awaiting the hearing of the appeal to Caesar which he had lodged with the procurator of Judaea. Over that period he was not in prison but was kept under military surveillance in his private quarters. The appeal lapsed due to the accusers' failure to prosecute the case within the prescribed period, and Paul's first Roman captivity came to an end. After his release Paul visited Spain, including Tarragona, as is evidenced by the modern statue of Paul and the inscription thereon in that city. Returning to Rome, Paul was subjected to another prosecution. The date was ca. 634 CE and the charge was maiestas, or treason. The factual basis of the charge was Paul's neglect of his duty as a citizen to show loyalty to the national religion; Paul had promoted a foreign cult that was in opposition to the official state theology. At a later point (chapter 2) the author amplifies the factual basis by postulating that the earlier charges against Paul in the provincial courts-Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Caesarea-prefigured the eventual charges in the Roman trial. That is, one feels, quite possible. The provincial charges will have been the gravamen of the lapsed appeal, and as there had been no verdict in that case there was no question of double jeopardy. As a citizen Paul was given proper trial and was punished within the limits of the law, in contrast to Peter who was, as a peregrine, punished extra-judicially. (The distinction between iudicatio and coercitio is not, however, quite as simple as that.) As for the particular jurisdiction that conducted the trial, Nero did not try the case himself; Paul's actions were not seen as a major threat to state security. The prosecution was handled by a private accuser, and the trial took place before the urban prefect, to whom Nero had delegated the task. The prefect was chosen in preference to other delegated jurisdictions, such as the senate (sic) or a special mandatory, because the prefect could try all types of case and had the same power of punishment as the emperor himself. The attribution of the trial to Nero himself in, especially, the Martyrium Pauli (a sharp debate between emperor and accused) is apocryphal. Although Paul was tried as a citizen, he stood in terrible isolation, being denied both the services of counsel and the support of defense witnesses. Paul was found guilty of maiestas, and since that was a capital crime he was sentenced to execution rather than banishment. After ratification of the sentence by Nero, Paul was led to the place of execution, on the Via Ostiense outside the city. He was accompanied by a military escort and was preceded by a placard (titulus) on which the reasons for his punishment were inscribed. Paul was executed by decapitation by the sword; as a citizen he was spared the rigors of the punishments meted out to peregrines, humiliores, such as being thrown to the beasts, crucified, or burnt alive. Paul's civic status secured him proper burial, in a sepulcher close to the place of execution. This conclusion is supported by an interesting analysis of the ius se pulcri and the crime of violatio se pulcri. …